CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Austin v. Calhoon

Anderson Austin, a long-standing member of The National Marine Engineer’s Beneficial Association (MEBA), filed a suit against Jesse M. Calhoon, Chairman of the MEBA Pension Trust, seeking a disability pension. Austin, who had suffered from a duodenal ulcer since 1961, applied for the pension in 1967, but his application was rejected by the Board of Trustees in 1971 based on a medical judgment. Calhoon moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that Austin's claim involved a uniquely private medical judgment rather than an issue of contract interpretation or union interests, thus falling outside the scope of Section 301 jurisdiction.

Labor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRAPension BenefitsDisability PensionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissCollective Bargaining AgreementMedical JudgmentIndividual RightsUnion Interests
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'DELL v. Barnhart

Plaintiff William O'Dell sought disability insurance benefits due to carpal tunnel syndrome, ulnar neuropathy, and tendinitis, which he claimed prevented him from working since 1996. The Commissioner of Social Security, Jo Anne B. Barnhart, denied benefits, asserting O'Dell retained the residual functional capacity to perform other work. After an Administrative Law Judge and the Appeals Council upheld the denial, O'Dell initiated this review action in the District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The District Court, presided over by Judge Larimer, affirmed the Commissioner's final determination, concluding that the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence regarding O'Dell's capacity for other work in the national economy.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician OpinionAdministrative Law JudgeVocational Expert TestimonyCarpal Tunnel SyndromeUlnar NeuropathyTendinitisFederal District Court Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Austin

Plaintiff John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company sued defendant Barbara L. Austin under the Labor Management Relations Act and New York law, alleging violation of a Covenant Not to Compete, breach of contract, and tortious interference with business. Austin, a former employee, allegedly retained confidential John Hancock records and used them to induce former clients to cancel their policies after joining a competitor. Austin moved for summary judgment, asserting the covenant was unenforceable. The court, applying New York law based on federal common law principles, determined that the restrictive covenant was reasonable in scope, time, and purpose, aiming to protect John Hancock's legitimate interest in confidential customer information rather than broadly restraining competition. Therefore, the court denied Austin's motion, concluding that genuine issues of material fact regarding Austin's actions and potential damages necessitate a trial.

Covenant Not to CompeteCollective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceSummary Judgment MotionFederal Common LawChoice of LawConfidential Customer InformationTrade SecretsRestrictive Covenants
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Austin v. Delligatti

The petitioner, Leonard B. Austin, a Democratic candidate for Supervisor of the Town of Oyster Bay, initiated a proceeding under CPLR article 4 against 'the respondents', alleging false and fraudulent campaign conduct. Austin contended that various campaign signs and literature using the word 'return' in connection with Angelo Delligatti were misleading, as Delligatti was not the incumbent. Austin sought an order for the removal of these materials, prevention of further distribution, and monetary damages for corrective advertising. The court, presided over by Justice Vincent R. Balletta, Jr., dismissed the petition, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court's powers in election matters are limited by Election Law Article 16 and that an aggrieved party must first exhaust administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the State Board of Elections under the Fair Campaign Code (9 NYCRR 6201.1 et seq.). The court also clarified that it possesses no inherent equitable powers in election cases and should not intervene in policing campaign literature, even when Election Day is imminent.

Election LawFair Campaign CodeJudicial JurisdictionAdministrative ExhaustionCampaign MisrepresentationsPolitical AdvertisingFirst Amendment RightsEquitable ReliefSummary ProceedingsNew York State Elections
References
22
Case No. CA 12-01554
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2013

SMITH, PAUL J. v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY

Paul J. Smith, a plaintiff, sued Nestle Purina Petcare Company (Nestle) for injuries sustained after slipping and falling in a grain silo during a construction project. Nestle then initiated a third-party action against E.E. Austin & Son, Inc. (Austin), Smith's employer. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment from Nestle and Austin. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Nestle and Austin on Labor Law § 240 (1) and most of § 241 (6) claims, finding the injury unrelated to ladder use and certain regulations inapplicable. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2), the Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claims, and the contractual indemnification claim between Nestle and Austin due to unresolved factual issues regarding Nestle's negligence.

Labor LawWorkplace InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationAppellate DivisionPremises LiabilityNegligenceSlip and FallGrain Silo
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of E.E. Austin & Son, Inc., sustained injuries after slipping and falling on accumulated grain dust and a hose while working on a construction project at a grain silo owned by Nestle Purina Petcare Company. Plaintiff commenced an action against Nestle Purina Petcare Company, alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence. Nestle, in turn, filed a third-party action against Austin for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment from both Nestle and Austin, leading to this appeal and cross-appeal. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, granting summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and partially dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (except for the part based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2)). However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 200 claim, common-law negligence, and contractual indemnification, citing triable issues of fact.

Labor LawCommon-law negligenceSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationGrain silo accidentConstruction project injuryTripping hazardPremises liabilitySupervisory controlIndemnity provision
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Austin v. Town of Farmington

The plaintiffs, Colleen and John Austin, commenced an action against the Town of Farmington alleging discrimination under the Federal Fair Housing Act. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief challenging a condition in a variance that permitted them to install an above-ground pool and fence for their disabled son. The condition required the removal of these modifications upon the sale of their home or when their son no longer resided there. Plaintiffs argued this violated the reasonable modifications requirement of the FHA. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, concluding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate discriminatory intent or disparate impact, and thus did not state a claim under the FHA.

Federal Fair Housing ActDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationZoning VarianceInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory ReliefMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentProperty RestorationAbove-ground Pool
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Austin v. Cornell University

This age discrimination lawsuit involves plaintiffs Edward W. Austin and Henry L. McPeak, former seasonal golf course rangers, suing Cornell University and individual defendants Richard Costello and William Szabo. Plaintiffs allege age discrimination after Cornell decided not to rehire them for the 1993 golf season. The court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding unlawful refusal to hire, finding genuine issues of material fact concerning discriminatory intent. However, summary judgment was granted for unlawful termination claims, as plaintiffs were seasonal employees. The court also denied the motion to dismiss individual defendants, confirming their potential liability under ADEA given their supervisory control. Finally, the defendants' motion to strike a paragraph referring to settlement discussions was granted.

Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA)Summary Judgment MotionUnlawful Refusal to HireSeasonal EmployeesIndividual Supervisor LiabilityPretextual DiscriminationPrima Facie CaseEmployment DecisionCornell UniversityGolf Course Rangers
References
25
Case No. ADJ9931812 ADJ9931813
Regular
Apr 04, 2017

DAVID AUSTIN vs. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the administrative law judge's finding that applicant David Austin did not sustain an industrial injury. The applicant's claim that a presumption of compensability arose under Labor Code section 5402 was rejected because no evidence of a properly filed claim form was presented. Furthermore, the applicant's challenges to the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report, concerning permanent disability, apportionment, and the physician's specialty, were deemed irrelevant or unsubstantiated. Therefore, the Board affirmed the original order finding no industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFresno Unified School DistrictIndustrial InjuryCustodianToesFeetLegsLabor Code Section 5402Presumption of CompensabilityDWC-1 Claim Form
References
1
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01876 [181 AD3d 1126]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Markey v. Autosaver Ford

Austin Allan Markey, a general manager for Autosaver Ford, was injured in a work-related fall on December 1, 2015. After informing his supervisor on December 15, 2015, that he intended to file a workers' compensation claim due to requiring surgery for a shoulder tear, he was terminated on December 17, 2015. Markey subsequently filed a discrimination claim against Autosaver Ford under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found in favor of Markey, concluding that the employer retaliated against him and failed to provide a valid business reason for the discharge. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Markey's employment was terminated in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimDiscriminationEmployer MisconductSubstantial EvidenceCausal NexusWitness CredibilityAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law Section 120Job Performance
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 36 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational